Sunday, February 10, 2013

Justice’s Plans for Event Tied to Pepsi Stir Outcry by Yale Alumni


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/07/us/politics/sotomayor-plans-for-pepsi-event-stirs-an-outcry.html?ref=us 

   I stumbled upon this article while scanning through the New York Times website, and thought the headline was peculiar. The article describes Justice Sonia Sotomayor agreeing to speak at a conference for the women of her Alma mater, Yale University. The controversy of this article is that PepsiCo (who has been a supporter/sponsor of the campus for years) is sponsoring the event and some alumni worry. They find it unsettling that a company that has questionable public health concerns is sponsoring the event. One source referred to the event as a “PepsiCo event” not a Yale University one. Sotomayor is not being paid, endorsed, or receiving any benefits from PepsiCo or Yale to speak at the event, nor does her appearance violate any legal ethics laws.
    Does this count as a valid political article? When I started reading it, the article seemed off topic, and, frankly, not important. The layout of the article itself was jumbled and its sources didn’t complement each other. One source began talking about the health consequences of PepsiCo’s products, while another was speaking about PepsiCo’s plans to open a research facility near campus. The actual Yale conference and Justice Sotomayor’s appearance at the conference were spoken of very little. Does the Justice’s participation in an event sponsored by PepsiCo seem like a conflict of interest? Does the hype about PepsiCo’s sponsorship seem unimportant and blown out of proportion?

15 comments:

  1. I think this was a very questionable article as far as its importance in journalism. I find it surprising that so many people can start freaking out over a soda company sponsoring an event. Many events, sports teams, conferences, theme parks and so on have sponsors, so I don't really see the big deal in this issue. The conference was hardly even mentioned in the article and various information was just thrown in randomly at times. The only thing I took from this story is that some Yale alumni must really hate Pepsi.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This article has a lot of speculation and I would question which sources it is using. I feel as though the alumni of Yale University are probably not all against having Pepsi Company sponsor the event. Next, it has zero impact in the political realm of America. Judges and justices give speeches very often and many of these events are sponsored. Pepsi itself does not cause obesity or diabetes, rather, people who are careless and drink too much of it and do not exercise get diabetes. You can die of water poisoning if you have to much water-- are we going to stop drinking that too? I just do not see how this is relevant in any realm of politics.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This article in my opinion was an absolute complete mess. Points (if there were any at all) were all over the place and the story seemed very scrambled. I agree with Scott as far as its lack of importance. The title of the article is also misleading, making it seem as if the Supreme Court Justice has direct ties to Pepsi. Justice Sonia Sotomayor in my eyes is just attending an event in support of her alumni, and that's it. There should not have even been an attempt to make this into a political story.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think this article didn't have any very strong evidence to support its notion that "PepsiCo has reached into the Surpreme Court." This statement is an obvious exaggeration of the situation; I believe Sotomayor is attending the conference solely because she is a Yale alumna.
    However I can understand why Yale alumni would be worried about a corporation funding their university. I don't think it's uncommon for multi-billionaire companies to back up politicians that may pass legislation in favor of the corporation. I think that every organization whether governmental or educational should be weary of whom they receive money from.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I would hesitate to call the article sensationalism, but it comes alarmingly close. "Outcry for Yale Alum" is certainly misleading; sources quoted in the article seem to be the most vesuvian, the most passionate about the issue at hand, not compromising. Essentially, middle ground seems to be missing here, and the story suffers as a result. Of course, I'm not convinced the story isn't manufactured to begin with, so it might not have been worth it, anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree with what James says in reference to missing the middle ground. The story comes off as harsh criticism for a private university having/not having ties with an industry. Why does that matter? This article seems very jumbled in presentation. Also the headline of the article is very dense. The reports of the critics were vague at best. It seems that the article tries to make a story out of drama.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'll admit that as I read this story, I was rather confused. I just do not believe that the story is written very well, because I found that I had to stop, reread, and really think about what was being written about. I also do not think that this story is very relevant. The quotes are not clear, and it would certainly make this article at least a bit more credible if it included Sotomayer's take on the subject. I think this story jumps around, mentioning a lot of different people's viewpoints, when it should involve the most important opinion, which is the subject's(Sotomoayer's) take.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I agree that the headline is misleading, as is the first line. The running dispute has not made its way to the Supreme Court and how that line is worded, "has — in a way — reached the Supreme Court," shows that even the writer see's that this is a stretch. I also agree that this does not seem important, especially not in a political way. I think the only people who actually care about this are those directly associated with Yale and who have an opinion about the Pepsi Co role. The only reason this story is given importance is the fact that Justice Sonia Sotomayor is there, but she isn't there for Pepsi she is there for her Alma Mater so I don't see any significance or news worthiness in this story. I don't believe her being there was a conflict of interest at all and the abundance of time spent talking about the sponsorship definitely blows it out of proportion.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I would agree with Olivia and not classify this article as a "political" article. I'm not sure why it is in the Politics section of the New York Times. The length of the article is also troublesome. This minuscule of an issue does not seem like it has that much controversy or significance, even if the NYT refers to it as a "supreme court" topic. The article gives little as to why Yale is so concerned. They mentioned PepsiCo sponsoring the event is a "health concern," to Yale University, but little about how the people who are attending the event or the backlash of PepsiCo hosting. How does it negatively contribute to the actual event, rather than the presentation of the sponsors of the event? The article overall was confusing and did little in explaining to readers the significance of this "political" issue.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This is an informative article regarding the situtation, however, I would agree that it probably shouldn't be in the politics section. It doesn't have much relevance and is definitely not a hard-hitting article. The information and facts are also kind of mixed around all over the place, making it slightly confusing. After reading the whole article I was left wondering what exactly the point in the article was.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I started off very confused with the headline and was not sure what the article was going to be about. I kept reading and was still confused what the hype was about. The situation seems blown out of proportion to me, its a soda company. They are sponsering an event for a top-notch school. This is not political journalism just because Justice Sotomayor is speaking and does not reflect her decision at all. Overall, like many others, I do not agree with the content of the article and views of the public. It is still something that can be written about but the importance is very low.

    ReplyDelete
  12. To me, this story definitely seems blown out of proportion. It is not the first event at Yale that Pepsi has sponsored. They have been a sponsor of the entire campus for years. I agree with the layout of the article. It was a bit confusing and jumped around a lot. The fact that Pepsi is building a new facility in the area does have some relevance, but at the same time it takes away from the point of the article. This is not politics, it is opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I agree completely. This is totally blown out of proportion and uncalled for even. This quote makes me laugh,"It’s disgusting. What is this nation’s leading educational institution doing participating with this threat to public health?” Am I the only one that can picture this person sitting behind a desk while they drink a can of pop and still say this? I believe this would be a waste of writing on the journalists' part. This brings up the question though, what is news? Certainly this is news to someone, just not me.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I think that this was blown out of proportion as well. I think the fact that you said "the article seemed off topic, and, frankly, not important," is a great way to put it. Just seems so unimportant and that this "news" isn't really news. Somewhat seems like someone is just writing to write.

    ReplyDelete